Re: Re: [v2 PATCH 0/6] IPVS: init and cleanup.

To: "Julian Anastasov" <ja@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Re: [v2 PATCH 0/6] IPVS: init and cleanup.
Cc: horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx, ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx, lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, hans.schillstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "Hans Schillstrom" <hans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:19:27 +0200 (CEST)
Hello Julian

>From what I can see there is nothing in the rs_table except for NAT:ed dest, 
>or ?
so the code fragment below will not work.

I.e. my double list_for_each that goes throug the service table must be there...
or do we need both?

>- For ip_vs_dst_event: I prefer to put everything in this
>function, the ip_vs_svc_reset is not needed (name is not
>good too). For example:
>       struct ip_vs_dest *dest;
>       unsigned int hash;
>       mutex_lock(&__ip_vs_mutex);
>       /* No need to use rs_lock, the mutex protects the list */
>       for (hash = 0; hash < IP_VS_RTAB_SIZE; hash++) {
>               list_for_each_entry(dest, &ipvs->rs_table[hash], d_list) {
>                       __ip_vs_dev_reset(dest, dev);
>               }
>       }
>       /* The mutex protects the trash list */
>       list_for_each_entry(dest, &ipvs->dest_trash, n_list) {
>               __ip_vs_dev_reset(dest, dev);
>       }
>       mutex_unlock(&__ip_vs_mutex);
>       No need to use __ip_vs_svc_lock or rs_lock because we
>do not change the lists, __ip_vs_dev_reset has the needed
>dst_cache locking (dst_lock). I assume we can safely use our
>__ip_vs_mutex from netdevice notifier.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>